question about esp and policy matching rule

question about esp and policy matching rule

[Richard Knight]

Hello,

 I don't fully understand the two rules below.

Since each of the rules are get inserted at position 1 in the table the ESP
rule ends up below the policy matching rule, will the ESP rule ever be
checked?

# allow all ipsec traffic into and out
$IP6_TABLES -I INPUT  1 -i $EXIF -p esp -j ACCEPT
$IP6_TABLES -I OUTPUT 1 -o $EXIF -p esp -j ACCEPT
$IP6_TABLES -I INPUT  1 -i $EXIF -m policy --dir in  --pol ipsec  -j ACCEPT
$IP6_TABLES -I OUTPUT 1 -o $EXIF -m policy --dir out --pol ipsec  -j ACCEPT

I have an application which does not seem to operate through my ipsec
tunnel without both rules in place, I'm having trouble figuring out why.


Thank you in advance.

Jamie Knight (rjknight@us.ibm.com)
IBM Power Firmware Development
(512) 286-7017 (t/l 386-7017)
office 045/2A-01
IBM Austin, TX

Re: question about esp and policy matching rule

[Sergei Zhirikov]

On 2010-07-19 05:29, Richard Knight wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>   I don't fully understand the two rules below.
>
> Since each of the rules are get inserted at position 1 in the table the ESP
> rule ends up below the policy matching rule, will the ESP rule ever be
> checked?
>
> # allow all ipsec traffic into and out
> $IP6_TABLES -I INPUT  1 -i $EXIF -p esp -j ACCEPT
> $IP6_TABLES -I OUTPUT 1 -o $EXIF -p esp -j ACCEPT
> $IP6_TABLES -I INPUT  1 -i $EXIF -m policy --dir in  --pol ipsec  -j ACCEPT
> $IP6_TABLES -I OUTPUT 1 -o $EXIF -m policy --dir out --pol ipsec  -j ACCEPT
>
> I have an application which does not seem to operate through my ipsec
> tunnel without both rules in place, I'm having trouble figuring out why.
>

The order of those rules does not matter. They have different purpose and match different packets.

With IPSec involved packets pass netfilter twice. For example, if you have an incoming ESP packet
that contains an UDP packet as payload the following happens.

1. The ESP packet passes netfilter and matches the line with "-I INPUT -p esp"
2. The packet is decrypted and its payload (the UDP packet in this example) is processed further
3. The UDP packet passes netfilter and matches the line with "-I INPUT -m policy ...".

In other words, "-m policy" applies to packets after IPSec decapsulation (or before encapsulation, for outgoing packets).

--
Sergei.

Re: question about esp and policy matching rule

[ratheesh k]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Sergei Zhirikov <sfzhi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2010-07-19 05:29, Richard Knight wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>  I don't fully understand the two rules below.
>>
>> Since each of the rules are get inserted at position 1 in the table the
>> ESP
>> rule ends up below the policy matching rule, will the ESP rule ever be
>> checked?
>>
>> # allow all ipsec traffic into and out
>> $IP6_TABLES -I INPUT  1 -i $EXIF -p esp -j ACCEPT
>> $IP6_TABLES -I OUTPUT 1 -o $EXIF -p esp -j ACCEPT
>> $IP6_TABLES -I INPUT  1 -i $EXIF -m policy --dir in  --pol ipsec  -j
>> ACCEPT
>> $IP6_TABLES -I OUTPUT 1 -o $EXIF -m policy --dir out --pol ipsec  -j
>> ACCEPT
>>
>> I have an application which does not seem to operate through my ipsec
>> tunnel without both rules in place, I'm having trouble figuring out why.
>>
>
> The order of those rules does not matter. They have different purpose and
> match different packets.
>
> With IPSec involved packets pass netfilter twice. For example, if you have
> an incoming ESP packet
> that contains an UDP packet as payload the following happens.
>
> 1. The ESP packet passes netfilter and matches the line with "-I INPUT -p
> esp"
> 2. The packet is decrypted and its payload (the UDP packet in this example)
> is processed further
> 3. The UDP packet passes netfilter and matches the line with "-I INPUT -m
> policy ...".
>
> In other words, "-m policy" applies to packets after IPSec decapsulation (or
> before encapsulation, for outgoing packets).
>
> --
> Sergei.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

After decapsulation , will the ip packet will traverse prerouting chain again ?

-Ratheesh

Re: question about esp and policy matching rule

[Sergei Zhirikov]

On 2010-07-20 18:56, ratheesh k wrote:
>
> After decapsulation , will the ip packet will traverse prerouting chain again ?
>

Do you mean the prerouting chain of "nat" table (as opposed to "mangle" or "raw" table)?

I don't know for sure, but I would think that yes. You could perform a simple experiment to know for sure.

When using tunnel mode the destination of an incoming encapsulated packet can be another host (usually in the local network), while the destination of the ESP packet is the machine where the IPSec tunnel ends, so those two are to be routed differently. I'm just thinking aloud based more on my general undertanding of IPSec rather than on the knowledge of the implementation.

And don't forget that only the first packed in a connection is visible in the prerouting chain of "nat" table.

--
Sergei.

Re: question about esp and policy matching rule

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Wednesday 2010-07-21 15:46, Sergei Zhirikov wrote:
> On 2010-07-20 18:56, ratheesh k wrote:
>>
>> After decapsulation , will the ip packet will traverse prerouting chain again
>> ?
>
> I don't know for sure, but I would think that yes. You could perform a simple
> experiment to know for sure.

As per http://jengelh.medozas.de/images/nf-packet-flow.png , yes it 
will. This also makes sense for transport mode, to strip the AH header 
or to decrypt ESP.

Re: question about esp and policy matching rule

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Monday 2010-07-19 05:29, Richard Knight wrote:
>rule ends up below the policy matching rule, will the ESP rule ever be
>checked?

Yes; -m policy applies to the in-tunnel packets only.

># allow all ipsec traffic into and out
>$IP6_TABLES -I INPUT  1 -i $EXIF -p esp -j ACCEPT
>$IP6_TABLES -I OUTPUT 1 -o $EXIF -p esp -j ACCEPT
>$IP6_TABLES -I INPUT  1 -i $EXIF -m policy --dir in  --pol ipsec  -j ACCEPT
>$IP6_TABLES -I OUTPUT 1 -o $EXIF -m policy --dir out --pol ipsec  -j ACCEPT

Re: question about esp and policy matching rule

[Richard Knight]

>
> Yes; -m policy applies to the in-tunnel packets only.
>

Ah, thanks. so for instance to block telnet through my tunnel I could add a
rule like this

$IP6_TABLES -I INPUT  1 -i $EXIF -p tcp --destination-port 23 -m policy
--dir in --pol ipsec -j REJECT

Re: question about esp and policy matching rule

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Monday 2010-07-19 15:34, Richard Knight wrote:
>>
>> Yes; -m policy applies to the in-tunnel packets only.
>
>Ah, thanks. so for instance to block telnet through my tunnel I could add a
>rule like this
>
>$IP6_TABLES -I INPUT  1 -i $EXIF -p tcp --destination-port 23 -m policy
>--dir in --pol ipsec -j REJECT

For something as evil^W insecure as telnet, I'd drop the -m policy 
portion and just always block it, tunneled or not :-)